Member: Mr P O’Donnell Mr R McPherson Mrs J Hassan v Represented by: Mr B Kadirgolam – Solicitor Community InfoSource — 2017

Mrs Jamila Hassan was dismissed with effect from 31 July 2016 after sending an email to the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation on 22 April 2016. The respondent accepted that the email was the principal reason for dismissal. The claimant also accepted that she did not have two years' continuous employment, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction over an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996.

The claimant's case was that the email was a protected disclosure for the purposes of s.103A ERA 1996. She said she reasonably believed the respondent was under a legal obligation to report major changes in the Combating FGM project to EFF, and that she was acting in the public interest. The tribunal held that, even if she believed there was such an obligation, that belief was not reasonable. It found that the grant letter did not require reporting every operational detail, that the split of funding between project roles was a legitimate way of structuring the project, and that the move to Albany House was a necessary step in enabling the project to operate.

The tribunal also held that the claimant did not reasonably believe her disclosure was in the public interest. Applying Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohammed, it found the disclosure chiefly concerned matters affecting the claimant's own working arrangements, including the allocation of hours and her objection to Mr Darasi's role, and that the balance of factors pointed away from public interest. It further found that the claimant's allegation that Mr Darasi was unqualified was not genuinely believed, but was made out of resentment. Although the tribunal accepted that she had previously raised some concerns about the premises and staffing split, it held that the disclosure was not reasonable in all the circumstances and did not satisfy the section 43G gateway conditions. It also held that section 43H did not apply because the alleged failure was not of an exceptionally serious nature.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim and recorded that the disclosure was made for ulterior motives, principally to spite Mr Darasi. No monetary award was made.